Editorial: Demanding dollars

The school funding debate is complicated by the agendas of some education advocates

January 22, 2011

It's hard to argue that a service that consumes more than one-third of the state budget and the lion's share of local budgets is getting short shrift. But that's what the Virginia PTA, the Virginia Education Association, the Virginia School Boards Association, and groups representing cities and counties got together to accuse Gov. Bob McDonnell of: shortchanging K-12 education in his budget proposals and his priorities.

Welcome to budget-season theatrics, squeaky wheel variety.

Let us begin with facts: In 2009, Virginia spent more than $16 billion on public K-12 education. That comes to more than $13,000 per student. In the last decade, while enrollment rose 10 percent, state aid to local schools increased 26 percent after inflation.

The governor has been roundly criticized for not mentioning K-12 education in his State of the Commonwealth address. That isn't evidence that he doesn't care about it, only that because it has been decently funded and is stable, its condition isn't as dire as other priorities on the state agenda.

Clearly, school officials, parents and others who care about education are concerned about making sure it is adequately funded. They should be. The quality of schools is a key determinant of the success of communities — and of children. Education is one of democracy's bedrock institutions. A citizenry that is not literate and informed cannot keep the watchful eye on government that preserves its freedoms.

The relationship between money and education quality, though, is not a simple one. Putting more money into schools doesn't necessarily make them better. While Virginia has hiked spending significantly in the last decade, there has been little to show for it in performance as measured by students' scores on national achievement tests.

Spending cuts do not necessarily harm education if they're not draconian and carefully managed. If schools shift the scalpel to nonacademic areas, to the many things that consume dollars but make little difference in children's learning or character, then a decision by the legislature not to restore funding to pre-recession levels, which is what some advocates are demanding, won't be the disaster they predict.

And notice this: Some advocates talk more about money for teachers than about funding for students. They want 3 percent pay raises, although the cost of living has changed little in the last two years. They oppose McDonnell's reasonable and necessary proposal that teachers contribute to their pension plan.

They're livid about the governor's proposal to give tax credits to corporations that fund scholarships to send poor children to private schools. They focus on the per-pupil funding it would take away from public schools, not on the lifeline it would offer to children trapped in schools that don't serve them well.

The people who pay for and rely on public schools — that's all of us — should pay attention to the debate over their funding. We should look closely at who's arguing for more (or less) money and whether there is self-interest at play as well as genuine concern about education. Groups that claim, and even intend, to put "children first" may be advocating moves that put school employees first.

For schools, this a challenging time, as the slow recovery strains state and local budgets and the stimulus money that has protected schools runs out. It's no wonder the rhetoric has heated up.

It's likely to break out at the local level, too, as cities and counties decide how much they can give to schools. It may produce, as it has in the past, unfair and foolish accusations that officials who don't come up with the money demanded don't care about children. The public and their representatives need to listen with calm and informed understanding of what makes for quality education — and real motivations of the people and groups on all sides of the discussion.